I was listening to the score today and a caller made a good point, with all the trade rumors that are going around with the white sox, they all seem to revolve around one name...Brandon McCarthy. Everyone wants McCarthy because he's a starter and a darn good one, and nobody wants Vazquez, because well I think we know the answer to that. The only team that wants Vazquez in their rotation over McCarthy is the white sox.

This really got me thinking, last year we saw what McCarthy could do in the rotation, he had a few bad starts but he also had some strong starts. With the way Vazquez has been pitching, why haven't the sox tried starting Brandon yet?

your thoughts....

kevingrt

07-25-2006, 12:34 PM

I was listening to the score today and a caller made a good point, with all the trade rumors that are going around with the white sox, they all seem to revolve around one name...Brandon McCarthy. Everyone wants McCarthy because he's a starter and a darn good one, and nobody wants Vazquez, because well I think we know the answer to that. The only team that wants Vazquez in their rotation over McCarthy is the white sox.

This really got me thinking, last year we saw what McCarthy could do in the rotation, he had a few bad starts but he also had some strong starts. With the way Vazquez has been pitching, why haven't the sox tried starting Brandon yet?

your thoughts....

The question everyone has been asking in every thread.

CashMan

07-25-2006, 12:42 PM

why haven't the sox tried starting Brandon yet?

your thoughts....

I really think Kenny is going old school, and having McCarthy, "pay his dues". He pitched his way onto the playpff roster last year, and was kept off. This is the only thing I can think of.

Malgar 12

07-25-2006, 01:01 PM

Probably because they don't want to concede Vazquez as a bust, because they're tyring to move him.

LongLiveFisk

07-25-2006, 01:08 PM

Probably because they don't want to concede Vazquez as a bust, because they're tyring to move him.

This would be a good guess. If they demote him it would lessen his trade value. I know, I know, you can question his trade value either way, but this sure as hell wouldn't help unload him. IF that's what KW is trying to do.

wdelaney72

07-25-2006, 01:14 PM

Because Javier Vazquez makes WAY more $$$ than McCarthy.

The Immigrant

07-25-2006, 01:19 PM

This would be a good guess. If they demote him it would lessen his trade value. I know, I know, you can question his trade value either way, but this sure as hell wouldn't help unload him. IF that's what KW is trying to do.

DING DING DING!

Demotion to the bullpen = severely deflated trade value, either now or in the offseason. That's why it will not happen this year.

TheOldRoman

07-25-2006, 01:51 PM

:threadblows:

No, it wasn't a good point. It was made by blowhard buffoons on the radio who don't know what the **** they are saying, and therefore, state obvious things in an attempt to sounds smart.

Vazquez has lots of potential. I think he will turn it around, but that is beyond the point. Why would teams want McCarthy over Vazquez? Vazquez is making over $10million a year, and only under contract for 2 more years. McCarthy is making $330k, and is under the team's controll for another four years. And he is younger. This isn't rocket science. This is Tim McCarver level analysis here.

http://www.rlrassociates.net/images/baseball_tim_mccarver.jpg
"It is my strong belief that, while teams like good pitching, they greatly prefer good pitching that is CHEAP."

http://www.drdonnica.com/images/celeb_madden.jpg
"That's a great point, Tim. Now, if, ah, if the batter hits the ball, and it goes over the fence, that's gonna be a homerun.

cbrownson13

07-25-2006, 01:52 PM

DING DING DING!

Demotion to the bullpen = severely deflated trade value, either now or in the offseason. That's why it will not happen this year.

I agree with that, but at some point, the organization has to decide on what is more important: having trade value for Javy or winning. And I think Brandon gives us a better chance at winning right now. If Javy's trade value goes down because of it, so be it.

I also think part of the difficulty with moving Javy to the pen is that he has shown some flashes of dominance in the first 4-5 innings of games. But I think almost everyone knew that when he came out for that last inning last night, it was over. But I'm sure it's hard to demote a guy when he shows those flashes of dominance.

Dan Mega

07-25-2006, 02:06 PM

But I'm sure it's hard to demote a guy when he shows those flashes of dominance.

Exactly, how many fifth starters are practically unhittable through 4.5-5.5 of every game? The problem has to be there somewhere and I sure hope Cooper is studying video as we speak. Is it his head? Is he dropping his elbow? Missing locations? Throwing that damn rolling curveball inside?:(:

ma-gaga

07-25-2006, 02:28 PM

From an injury standpoint, I think the W.Sox are making a mistake with Fingernails by keeping him in the bullpen.

If I was KW/Ozzie, I'd make sure he get's into at least 130-140 innings this year. And right now he's only projected to pitch around 84 innings. I'm sure he'll pick up some spot starts in September, but I think they're really making a mistake by lowering his IP'ed this year.

If he only pitches 100 innings this year, gets thrust into a starters role NEXT year, and pitches 180-190 innings, he's a huge injury risk for 2008. Arms simply don't like that level of innings jump.

:gulp:

infohawk

07-25-2006, 02:48 PM

I agree with that, but at some point, the organization has to decide on what is more important: having trade value for Javy or winning. And I think Brandon gives us a better chance at winning right now. If Javy's trade value goes down because of it, so be it.
I really believe that it would be a huge blunder by the Sox to not replace Vazquez with McCarthy in the rotation. Even if the Sox were not to make another move by the trade deadline, I think that letting McCarthy start and putting Vazquez in the 'pen would have a fairly significant impact. McCarthy would produce better starts and Vazquez would, in my opinion, be a fairly dominating reliever for this year.

Fred Manrique

07-25-2006, 03:00 PM

Javy is driving me nuts, but if we take McCarthy out of the bullpen we are hurting ourselves there. If McDougal comes in and is lights out, maybe the move can be made. But, I don't think it's worth basically giving up on Javy for what might only be a slight improvement starting and a downgrade in the pen.

Maybe we should just pitch Javy five and go to Brandon as a "second start" for three innings or so.

Chicken Dinner

07-25-2006, 03:00 PM

McCarthy is not going to replace Javy in the rotation. Maybe after the 5th, but not in the rotation.

hold2dibber

07-25-2006, 03:12 PM

Javy is driving me nuts, but if we take McCarthy out of the bullpen we are hurting ourselves there. If McDougal comes in and is lights out, maybe the move can be made. But, I don't think it's worth basically giving up on Javy for what might only be a slight improvement starting and a downgrade in the pen.

Maybe we should just pitch Javy five and go to Brandon as a "second start" for three innings or so.

Why don't you think Vazquez would be effective in the pen? He's been fantastic this year the first two times through the order, which seems to suggest that he'd be very successful in relief.

Fred Manrique

07-25-2006, 03:21 PM

Why don't you think Vazquez would be effective in the pen? He's been fantastic this year the first two times through the order, which seems to suggest that he'd be very successful in relief.

That is a good point, but he's never been a closer and with his seemingly soft personality that might be too big of a shot to his confidence.

He has been lights out for his first few innings though...

cbrownson13

07-25-2006, 03:35 PM

The thing with putting Vazquez in a relief role is if he can't get through a lineup 2-3 times without getting crushed, what makes anyone think he will be able to do it in back-to-back days or multiple times in a series?

StatHead21

07-25-2006, 04:01 PM

I was puzzled when they traded for Vazquez, McCarthy is going to be good.

I still think they can get Soriano w/out giving up Brandon.

Mohoney

07-25-2006, 04:26 PM

McCarthy's arm = NOT STRETCHED!

If you people really want him to start, he would need to be demoted and get at least 5 starts in AAA beforehand.

russ99

07-25-2006, 05:48 PM

I don't know. The pre-World Series Jerry cynic in me would have offered up that they're keeping Brandon away from a starting spot to keep his potential salary boost down when he's due for arbitration or skimming service time.

I agree - it has a lot to do with the current starters' trade value, especially since Kenny's been quoted that he promised McCarthy a starting spot next year and would be dealing one of the five starters after Conteras' and Garland's no-trade clauses expire.

FoulTerritory

07-25-2006, 05:55 PM

The title of this thread is perhaps the most quintessential example of an oxymoron ever.

fquaye149

07-25-2006, 05:56 PM

I was listening to the score today and a caller made a good point, with all the trade rumors that are going around with the white sox, they all seem to revolve around one name...Brandon McCarthy. Everyone wants McCarthy because he's a starter and a darn good one, and nobody wants Vazquez, because well I think we know the answer to that. The only team that wants Vazquez in their rotation over McCarthy is the white sox.

This really got me thinking, last year we saw what McCarthy could do in the rotation, he had a few bad starts but he also had some strong starts. With the way Vazquez has been pitching, why haven't the sox tried starting Brandon yet?

your thoughts....
This is a silly argument, and sophistry.

Let me explain this to you:

right now, it is 2006.

The White Sox want to win in....2006

A team that would be interested in trading for McCarthy will be trading away superstar talent because they can not win in...2006

Kenny Williams' first concern is not with years 2007 and beyond

A team would be interested in trading for McCarthy because they are more concerned with winning in years 2007 and beyond than in 2006.

Is this starting to make sense?

Don't listen to the score.

Daver

07-25-2006, 06:04 PM

From an injury standpoint, I think the W.Sox are making a mistake with Fingernails by keeping him in the bullpen.

If I was KW/Ozzie, I'd make sure he get's into at least 130-140 innings this year. And right now he's only projected to pitch around 84 innings. I'm sure he'll pick up some spot starts in September, but I think they're really making a mistake by lowering his IP'ed this year.

If he only pitches 100 innings this year, gets thrust into a starters role NEXT year, and pitches 180-190 innings, he's a huge injury risk for 2008. Arms simply don't like that level of innings jump.

:gulp:

Bull****.

Pitchers get hurt because they don't throw enough.

With good mechanics, any pitcher should be able to make the adjustment in innings rather easily, and in a short period of time, just ask Jon Smoltz.

WizardsofOzzie

07-25-2006, 06:08 PM

Because Javier Vazquez makes WAY more $$$ than McCarthy.

i despise this point of view. So you're telling me that since Vazquez makes way more money than Mac (because of the yankees and their tendency to overpay players BIG TIME) We should continue to let him suck it up when Mac may bring way more quality pitching to the table? Who cares that Vazquez makes so much money, he's still pitching like crap and could use a kick in the ass such a demotion to the pen.

Lip Man 1

07-25-2006, 06:22 PM

Daver is dead on with his comment on pitchers not throwing enough. They are babied since high school.

Lip

slobes

07-25-2006, 06:42 PM

The title of this thread is perhaps the most quintessential example of an oxymoron ever.
:redneck

Domeshot17

07-25-2006, 06:50 PM

the point about money is true. Its true in all sports, you don't pay someone 10-15 mil a year to have them not do their job.

Daver is dead on with his comment on pitchers not throwing enough. They are babied since high school.

Lip

Actually, you're wrong on that, good HS pitchers are more often than not overpitched, some starting every three days, part of scouting HS pitchers is knowing the coach and his tendencies towards his best pitchers. There are many HS pitchers that ended up playing junior college ball because no team would draft them.

There is a huge difference between pitching and throwing.

ewokpelts

07-25-2006, 07:03 PM

The MAIN reason why Javier wont rot in the Bullpen: $11 million a year.
Relievers dont make $11 million a year. Ask Kerry Wood.
Javier is better off starting until he gets traded.
Gene

WizardsofOzzie

07-25-2006, 07:12 PM

The MAIN reason why Javier wont rot in the Bullpen: $11 million a year.
Relievers dont make $11 million a year. Ask Kerry Wood.
Javier is better off starting until he gets traded.
Gene

Even if we lose every one of his starts, and let Mac sit in the bullpen even though he could possibly win a few starts???

Malgar 12

07-25-2006, 07:14 PM

This is a silly argument, and sophistry.

Let me explain this to you:

right now, it is 2006.

The White Sox want to win in....2006

A team that would be interested in trading for McCarthy will be trading away superstar talent because they can not win in...2006

Kenny Williams' first concern is not with years 2007 and beyond

A team would be interested in trading for McCarthy because they are more concerned with winning in years 2007 and beyond than in 2006.

Is this starting to make sense?

Don't listen to the score.

Wait a minute... BMac can't contribute in 2006 as a starter? Only because he hasn't been given the opportunity. Are the Tigers worried about winning in 2006? DO THEY HAVE A ROOKIE IN THE ROTATION? Talk about sophistry...If you think they're better off without McCarthy in the rotation that is one thing...to argue that he would make them incapable of contending is quite another.

fquaye149

07-25-2006, 07:55 PM

Wait a minute... Fingernails on a blackboard can't contribute in 2006 as a starter? Only because he hasn't been given the opportunity. Are the Tigers worried about winning in 2006? DO THEY HAVE A ROOKIE IN THE ROTATION? Talk about sophistry...If you think they're better off without McCarthy in the rotation that is one thing...to argue that he would make them incapable of contending is quite another.'

I never said McCarthy can't contribute. Reading is a skill. I'm saying the White Sox and a scrub team like Washington's philosophy is different, which would go a long way to explaining why Ozzie and Kenny have Vazquez in the rotation and McCarthy in the bullpen but why the Nationals want McCarthy and not Vazquez.

Would you rather have, say, Livan Hernandez or Kiko Calero in a trade if you were the Sox. It's hard to find a good example since it's a unique situation where Vazquez has plus stuff and just can't put it together (gee...ala Contreras).

Before you accuse ME of sophistry, keep in mind I don't think Vazquez should necessarily be in the rotation. I'm just showing how the logic of the score is horrible logic (and doing so without using any sophistry). Was anything I pointed out factually incorrect? It was not. Therefore the White Sox's needs are different from he Nationals' needs and therefore the Score's "argument" is sophistry.

Malgar 12

07-25-2006, 09:57 PM

There are 29 other teams, 16 of which are in the NL. Who says Vazquez needs to go to the Nationals?

fquaye149

07-25-2006, 11:11 PM

There are 29 other teams, 16 of which are in the NL. Who says Vazquez needs to go to the Nationals?

Are you serious? You think we're going to trade with a team still in contention. I forget who broke it down earlier. There are three teams who are out of contention: The Cubs, The Pirates and The Nationals....in the AL it's the D-Rays, the Orioles (though they won't be cutting payroll) The Indians, The Royals, and the Mariners.

Of those teams the Indians are not viable trading partners (since they still think they will be able to compete against us next year).

Of the other teams only the Cubs, Orioles and Mariners would really be looking to take on Vazquez's payroll.

Is this hard to understand? I mean, I know this is a WSCR thread, but I expected a little critical thinking....

SoxFanPrope

07-25-2006, 11:57 PM

This is a silly argument, and sophistry.
Let me explain this to you:
right now, it is 2006.
The White Sox want to win in....2006
A team that would be interested in trading for McCarthy will be trading away superstar talent because they can not win in...2006
Kenny Williams' first concern is not with years 2007 and beyond
A team would be interested in trading for McCarthy because they are more concerned with winning in years 2007 and beyond than in 2006.
Is this starting to make sense?
Don't listen to the score.
Wow, unbelievably rude and uncalled for. Let's jump ahead for a second...
Reading is a skill
The original post of this thread said that a caller into the Score suggested that only McCarthy was involved in the trade rumors. Not the Score.
Kenny Williams' first concern is not with years 2007 and beyond
Granted, but my guess is that unless anybody he trades for is just soley for a rental, he might include other years into the deal. My guess is that those other years could possibly, maybe, include 2007.

ewokpelts

07-26-2006, 12:25 AM

Even if we lose every one of his starts, and let Mac sit in the bullpen even though he could possibly win a few starts???never said i like that idea...just that it's costing them a lot of bread

fquaye149

07-26-2006, 03:48 AM

Wow, unbelievably rude and uncalled for. Let's jump ahead for a second...
.
how is it rude and uncalled for? Whether a caller or a host said it, it's emblematic of the discourse you'll find on the score--kneejerk and ill informed/thought through.

the score is a tabloid and that argument is silly. correct me if i've said anything rude of uncalled for..

fquaye149

07-26-2006, 03:51 AM

Granted, but my guess is that unless anybody he trades for is just soley for a rental, he might include other years into the deal. My guess is that those other years could possibly, maybe, include 2007.

straw men bore the **** out of me.

please address my actual points without pretending that a contract extension DOESN'T mean Kenny's #1 priority is winning this year

PennStater98r

07-26-2006, 01:57 PM

how is it rude and uncalled for? Whether a caller or a host said it, it's emblematic of the discourse you'll find on the score--kneejerk and ill informed/thought through.

the score is a tabloid and that argument is silly. correct me if i've said anything rude of uncalled for..

He's not saying your statement is rude. He's saying you are rude, and you are. Do you really need to remind us that "reading is a skill?" No ****?! Here I thought just recognizing the letters of the alphabet was the skill...

Being polite and not being mouthy on a message board is also a skill - and though I am not exhibiting that skill in this post - I feel fine about it - b/c you've been pretty rude to nearly everyone that is just trying to analyze the Sox and the trade deadline. Speaking of boring the **** out of something. I'm done with you here. Bye.

batmanZoSo

07-26-2006, 03:32 PM

I was listening to the score today and a caller made a good point, with all the trade rumors that are going around with the white sox, they all seem to revolve around one name...Brandon McCarthy. Everyone wants McCarthy because he's a starter and a darn good one, and nobody wants Vazquez, because well I think we know the answer to that. The only team that wants Vazquez in their rotation over McCarthy is the white sox.

This really got me thinking, last year we saw what McCarthy could do in the rotation, he had a few bad starts but he also had some strong starts. With the way Vazquez has been pitching, why haven't the sox tried starting Brandon yet?

your thoughts....

I definitely don't want to give up McCarthy in a trade, especially not for someone like Soriano, e.g. the kind of player that exemplifies everything we don't want from this club. And I'll say that I really don't care for Vazquez. But when it comes to McCarthy over him it's definitely a grass-is-greener thing. He had one start this year and didn't look too impressive. I don't think he's a long way off, but he's not ready yet. Believe me, he'll benefit from the role he's in. Garland would have too in his early years, but we didn't have 5 starters that were better than him back then.

fquaye149

07-26-2006, 06:06 PM

He's not saying your statement is rude. He's saying you are rude, and you are. Do you really need to remind us that "reading is a skill?" No ****?! Here I thought just recognizing the letters of the alphabet was the skill...

Being polite and not being mouthy on a message board is also a skill - and though I am not exhibiting that skill in this post - I feel fine about it - b/c you've been pretty rude to nearly everyone that is just trying to analyze the Sox and the trade deadline. Speaking of boring the **** out of something. I'm done with you here. Bye.

I'm not the first person on this message board to say "reading is a skill." A couple posters, some who go by the name "Voodochile", "Daver", and "Palehose George" have remarked those very words in the past, often to me.

Are you saying they are rude?

Reading is a skill. If you're going to read a post I make and completely get an errant interpretation out of it, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are merely reading poorly.

The only other option is that you're purposefully distorting and perverting my message. But I will assume that you (not you yourself who I am quoting, since I wasn't engaged with you in this thread nor do I remember ever being. That should be clear, but I won't leave room for poor reading...better safe than sorry with some posters here) are not TRYING to twist my words.

Sorry I'm not all cute and cuddly when people post silly and annoying things.

fquaye149

07-26-2006, 06:08 PM

He's not saying your statement is rude. He's saying you are rude, and you are. Do you really need to remind us that "reading is a skill?" No ****?! Here I thought just recognizing the letters of the alphabet was the skill...

Being polite and not being mouthy on a message board is also a skill - and though I am not exhibiting that skill in this post - I feel fine about it - b/c you've been pretty rude to nearly everyone that is just trying to analyze the Sox and the trade deadline. Speaking of boring the **** out of something. I'm done with you here. Bye.

Oh and the funniest part of this (beside the fact that I'm clearly on this posters ignore list and he can't even see how silly his post is) is that what the original poster called rude was an earlier quote and not the quote where I said "reading is a skill"

it turns out reading really is a skill. teehee

kwolf68

07-27-2006, 08:43 AM

But when it comes to McCarthy over him it's definitely a grass-is-greener thing. He had one start this year and didn't look too impressive. I don't think he's a long way off, but he's not ready yet. Believe me, he'll benefit from the role he's in.

So you base your view of McCarthy on his one start this year, a spot start, but fail to consider the masterful way he pitched in the 2nd half of last starts where he made numerous outstanding starts.

We should have never traded for Vazquez, because this guy-an important factor in us winning the division last year-was the rightful owner of that 5th spot. Instead we trade off some good talent for a guy like Vazquez, a total flop.